Skip to content

Reviewed by

Cybersecurity Services

Pharos Production provides Cybersecurity Services that protect your applications, infrastructure and data from evolving threats.

  • 50+ audits completed
  • 90+ engineers
  • 104 Clutch reviews

Your business results matter

Achieve them with minimized risk through our bespoke innovation capabilities

Your contact details
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Please enter your message
* required

We typically reply within 4 hours. Prefer email? hello@pharosproduction.com

SOC 2 Type II GDPR ISO 27001 NDA Protected

Aligned with these frameworks. Audit reports available on request.

Reviewed and updated
Last updated by Dmytro Nasyrov, Founder and CTO. Content reflects Pharos Production delivery data as of the review date. Editorial policy.
Dmytro Nasyrov - Founder and CTO of Pharos Production

Reviewed by Dmytro Nasyrov

Founder and CTO

23+ years in custom software development. Led 110+ projects across FinTech, healthcare, Web3 and enterprise, ISO 27001-aligned team.

What is cybersecurity engineering?

Cybersecurity engineering is the discipline of reducing an organization's attack surface and breach impact through threat modeling, secure architecture, penetration testing, source code audits, cloud configuration review, secure development lifecycle (SDLC) integration, incident response planning and compliance readiness. Production cybersecurity covers application security (web, mobile, API), cloud security (AWS/GCP/Azure hardening), container and Kubernetes security, identity and access management, secrets management, observability for security events and tabletop exercises. Pharos has run 50+ formal security engagements since 2018 including smart contract audits, web/API pen tests, cloud configuration reviews and SDLC hardening.
Authoritative citations 12 sources
  1. DORA State of DevOps Report The Google DORA State of DevOps annual report defines the four key software delivery metrics (deployment frequency, lead time for changes, mean time to restore, change failure rate) that we instrument on every production engagement to benchmark delivery performance. dora.dev
  2. Stack Overflow Developer Survey The Stack Overflow Developer Survey documents language, framework, database and tooling adoption across tens of thousands of engineers annually, and we use the trend lines to validate stack choices against hiring pool depth for each client. survey.stackoverflow.co
  3. ThoughtWorks Technology Radar The ThoughtWorks Technology Radar tracks tools, platforms, techniques and languages across adopt, trial, assess and hold rings twice yearly, and is a cross-check we use to validate architectural recommendations against industry consensus. thoughtworks.com
  4. Google SRE Book The Google SRE book codifies service-level objectives, error budgets, incident response and postmortem culture that our production readiness gates adopt directly when handing over a platform to a client operations team. sre.google
  5. Martin Fowler bliki Martin Fowler's bliki is the most cited reference for enterprise architecture patterns including microservices, strangler fig, CQRS, event sourcing and refactoring, which shapes how we describe and implement architecture decisions in ADRs on every client engagement. martinfowler.com
  6. Gartner Custom Application Services Magic Quadrant Gartner publishes multiple Magic Quadrant reports covering custom application services, digital engineering and outsourced development that identify market leaders, completeness of vision and niche specialists across the global software services industry. gartner.com
  7. ISO 27001 Information Security Standard ISO 27001:2022 defines the internationally recognized information security management system requirements that Pharos Production aligns its practices to, shaping the control framework we inherit and extend for client software engagements. iso.org
  8. OWASP Top 10 The OWASP Top 10 ranks the highest-impact web application security risks and is the single most cited threat reference for application security programs, which every Pharos build is reviewed against before production release. owasp.org
  9. NIST Secure Software Development Framework NIST SSDF SP 800-218 defines secure development practices including threat modelling, SBOM generation, vulnerability disclosure and supply chain controls, which we treat as the baseline Software Development Lifecycle checklist on every client engagement. csrc.nist.gov
  10. CNCF Cloud Native Landscape The CNCF Cloud Native Landscape maps the full cloud-native ecosystem across orchestration, runtime, observability, security and database categories, useful reference material we consult when validating platform choices for client Kubernetes and service mesh engagements. landscape.cncf.io
  11. Accelerate by Forsgren, Humble, Kim Accelerate distills the multi-year DORA research program into the book-length case for DevOps practices correlated with high-performance software delivery, and is the single most cited academic reference for the delivery metrics we ship inside every client engagement. itrevolution.com
  12. IEEE SWEBOK The IEEE Software Engineering Body of Knowledge codifies the professional knowledge areas covering requirements, design, construction, testing, maintenance, configuration management and engineering economics that underpin every professional software services engagement. computer.org
What we do not do
  • Compliance-theater engagements where the client wants a report but not remediation
  • 24/7 managed SOC operations (we are not a managed security service provider)
  • Incident response for active breaches without partner IR firms in the loop
  • Security audits of systems the client cannot access or instrument

Cybersecurity engineering at Pharos Production at a glance

  • Engagements: 50+ formal security engagements since 2018 (web/API pen tests, cloud reviews, source audits, smart contract audits, SDLC hardening)
  • Stack: Burp Suite Pro, OWASP ZAP, Semgrep, CodeQL, Snyk, Trivy, Prowler, ScoutSuite, Pacu, Metasploit, custom tooling
  • Specializations: Web/API app security, cloud security (AWS/GCP/Azure), container + Kubernetes, smart contract audits, SDLC integration
  • Pricing: Web/API pen test from $12,000-$40,000; cloud review $15,000-$50,000; source code audit $30,000-$120,000+
  • Timeline: Web pen test 2-4 weeks; cloud review 1-2 weeks; full audit 4-8 weeks with remediation cycle
  • Report deliverable: Executive summary + technical writeup per finding + reproduction steps + remediation guidance + retest pass after fixes
  • Compliance: ISO 27001-aligned team, SOC 2 / HIPAA / PCI DSS readiness assessments, evidence preparation for accredited auditors
  • Honest scope: We recommend threat modeling over pen tests for greenfield and decline compliance theater

Independent pen test vs internal AppSec team: which is better?

Independent pen tests give you a fresh adversarial perspective and a defensible report for customers, regulators and insurers. Internal AppSec teams give you continuous coverage and tribal knowledge integrated into the development cycle. According to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 guidance, the strongest security postures use both: continuous internal coverage plus periodic independent audits at major releases and compliance milestones.

Factor Independent pen test Internal AppSec only
Adversarial view Fresh eyes; no assumptions baked in by the build team Familiarity blind spots; harder to challenge own design
Defensible report Third-party report for customers, regulators and cyber insurance Internal memo; less weight with external stakeholders
Coverage cadence Periodic deep dives at major releases or compliance milestones Continuous; integrated into PR review and CI
Tooling Mature commercial tools amortized across many engagements Cost of building and maintaining your own tooling stack
Specialization Smart contract / cloud / mobile / appsec specialists per engagement Generalist coverage; deep specialization is expensive
Remediation Findings + concrete remediation guidance + retest pass Owned by build team; varies by engineer experience
Cost (year 1) $30,000-$120,000 depending on scope and audit type $200K-$500K loaded for 2-3 senior AppSec hires
Best fit Pre-launch, post-major-release, compliance audits, customer due diligence Continuous protection across day-to-day shipping

Our security engagement protocol

Cybersecurity engagements follow Pharos Verified Delivery with audit-specific gates: discovery scopes asset inventory, threat model and regulatory requirements; build executes the structured testing or review protocol; production readiness delivers remediation guidance ranked by severity with retest pass; post-engagement supports retest after client fixes and a 30-day question window.

Pharos Verified Delivery 4-phase methodology with typical durations and deliverables
  1. Phase 01 / 04

    Paid Discovery

    2-4 weeks
    • Technical validation
    • Architecture proposal
    • Scope refined estimate
    82% on-schedule with discovery
  2. Phase 02 / 04

    Iterative Build

    2-week sprints
    • Working demos every sprint
    • CTO review at milestones
    • ADRs documented
    Transparent progress tracking
  3. Phase 03 / 04

    Production Readiness

    • Monitoring and alerting
    • Security audit Pen test
    • Runbooks and rollback
    ISO 27001 aligned
  4. Phase 04 / 04

    Support

    Ongoing
    • Security patches
    • Performance tuning
    • 4h SLA response
    Continuous improvement

Pharos Verified Delivery applied to 110+ production applications since 2013

Security engagements we can talk about

Three recent audits and reviews where the specific finding surfaced a pattern worth sharing. Client details anonymized; severity ratings follow CVSS 3.1.

Web app penetration test

Q1 2025 · FinTech platform, US
Before

FinTech web app handled $40M monthly transaction volume. Internal security review found nothing. External pen test had not been performed.

After

Pharos pen test found 1 critical and 7 high-severity vulnerabilities including authentication bypass and IDOR. All fixed within 3 weeks. Subsequent quarterly tests find only minor issues.

The critical was a JWT verification bug that let an attacker escalate to admin with a crafted token; IDORs let authenticated users read adjacent account balances. Fixes shipped with a permanent authorization middleware pattern the client now reuses across all services.

Cloud configuration review

Q4 2024 · Healthcare SaaS, US
Before

AWS environment grown organically over 4 years. 180+ IAM policies, 47 public S3 buckets, no baseline for least privilege. CSPM tool flagged 2,100 findings with no prioritization.

After

Security hardening project: 38 public buckets made private or encrypted, IAM policies consolidated to 42 role-based templates, CSPM findings reduced 81%, prioritized remediation backlog for the rest. Automated drift detection via Prowler in CI.

We triaged the 2,100 findings by exploitability and data sensitivity, weighted above the raw severity score. 340 findings were critical on paper but unreachable behind defense-in-depth; 180 were lower severity but directly exposed PHI. We fixed those first, then built CI drift detection to prevent regression.

SDLC hardening

Q3 2024 · SaaS scale-up, EU
Before

Security testing was manual and ad-hoc. Vulnerabilities reached production. Each release required 2 weeks of manual security review and blocked engineering.

After

Automated CI pipeline with SAST (Semgrep), dependency scanning (Dependabot, Trivy), secrets detection (gitleaks), container scanning and SBOM generation. Release security review reduced to 4 hours. Zero critical vulnerabilities in production for 14 months.

Semgrep rules scoped to the client codebase, Dependabot with auto-PR remediation for safe upgrades, gitleaks on every push, weekly Trivy scan of container images. Findings route directly to the engineer who owns the code, not a shared security inbox.

Client names anonymized under NDA. Full case studies at /cases/.

When a full security audit is not the answer

We decline roughly 30% of RFPs we receive. Forcing a bad fit costs both sides 3-6 months and damages outcomes. Here is how we think about scope:

Projects we decline
  • Internal-only tools with no external attack surface and no sensitive data
  • Greenfield projects without an MVP to actually test
  • Compliance "checkboxes" without budget to fix what the audit finds
  • Audits requested for marketing without intent to remediate
  • 24/7 managed SOC needs (we are not a managed security provider)
We recommend the right depth of security

Not every project needs a full pen test. Sometimes a threat model session catches issues before code is written. Sometimes a SAST baseline plus dependency scanning is the right level of investment. We start every security engagement by asking what you are actually trying to protect and recommend the appropriate depth - not the most expensive option. We have closed engagements with "a 2-hour threat model will save you $40K on a pen test" as the deliverable.

Pharos security portfolio

Pharos security delivery portfolio observations, 2019-2026

Ranges we consistently see across our security delivery portfolio.

  • Mature teams cover 80-92% of MITRE ATT&CK technique IDs observed in their threat model with EDR or log-based detection.

  • Critical CVE patch SLA hit rate ranges 78-94% on teams with automated patching; drops to 42-65% on manual processes.

  • 1.5-4 hours mean time to recovery for P1 security incidents on teams with documented runbooks and weekly tabletop exercises.

  • SBOM generation rate went from 18% of engagements in 2023 to 73% in 2025. Expect 95%+ in 2026 once EU and SEC attestation requirements bite.

  • 6-12 weeks for baseline security hardening and SOC 2 readiness scaffolding; 12-24 weeks for zero trust architecture rollout on existing stacks[7].

Cybersecurity outlook 2026-2027

Application security and enterprise defense are being reshaped on three fronts: default zero trust, mandatory supply-chain attestation and AI-augmented SOC triage.

  • Zero trust becomes default, not premium

    Zero trust architecture shifts from large-enterprise category to default expectation for mid-market SaaS. Identity-first access control replaces network-perimeter assumptions even on internal services[9].

  • Supply chain attestation goes mandatory

    SBOM, SLSA attestation and dependency signing move from advisory (SEC and EU NIS2) to buyer-required by 2027. Teams without build-chain provenance lose enterprise contracts.

  • AI-augmented SOC changes triage economics

    LLM-assisted triage and enrichment compress mean time to investigation materially, shifting SOC staffing toward investigation engineering versus alert handling.

Our four-dimension security evaluation template

Every security engagement we ship runs against the same four-dimension readiness evaluation before handover.

  1. 25%

    Identity and access controls

    Evaluated on MFA coverage, privilege model, session binding and break-glass path. Phishing-resistant MFA on privileged accounts; least-privilege enforced at service and DB layers; documented break-glass with time-bounded access[9].

  2. 30%

    Detection and response coverage

    Evaluated on EDR coverage, centralized logging, MTTR and runbook completeness. EDR on all endpoints and servers; centralized logging with 90-day hot retention; MTTR under 4h for P1; runbooks for the top 20 alert patterns.

  3. 20%

    Supply chain and dependency hygiene

    Evaluated on SBOM coverage, dependency scan cadence and signed builds. SBOM generated on every build; dependency scan run daily; critical CVE patch SLA 7 days; production builds signed and verified[11].

  4. 25%

    Compliance and audit readiness

    Evaluated on ISO 27001 and SOC 2 control mapping, evidence automation and audit trail. ISO 27001 or SOC 2 controls mapped to code and process; evidence collection automated; tamper-evident audit trail retained 12 months[7].

Production post-mortem

When the log aggregator had no PII redaction

This example is published with the client's permission. During a July 2025 audit of a FinTech client's environment, full HTTP request bodies were being routed to a centralized logging stack without PII scrubbing. Credit card numbers and partial SSNs surfaced in observability logs accessible to 40+ engineers. The exposure triggered a GDPR notification deadline before our audit caught it. The root cause was missing PII scrubbing at the log-shipper layer.

PII redaction now enforced at log-shipper layer for every engagement. PII fingerprint scan added to pre-production checklist. Observability data classification reviewed quarterly against data-sensitivity policy.

How we count security engagements
Cybersecurity metrics counted: 50+ formal engagements = security work with deliverable reports and retest passes. Finding severity measured against CVSS 3.1. Remediation rate measured against closed findings on retest. Findings that are reported but not fixed do not count. Last updated: . Editorial policy.
Limits of security testing
Pharos Production performs security testing and audits. We are not a certification body or a 24/7 managed security provider. Compliance certifications (SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS) are issued by accredited auditors based on our assessment work. Security testing reduces risk but cannot eliminate it. Findings reflect the test scope at a point in time.

Platforms we work with

Trusted by Coinbase, Consensys, Core Scientific, MicroStrategy, Gate.io and 10+ more Web3 and enterprise platforms

16+ partners

Our 16 technology partners include:

  • Consensys
  • Gate Io
  • Coinbase
  • Ludo
  • Core Scientific
  • Debut Infotech
  • Axoni
  • Alchemy
  • Starkware
  • Mara Holdings
  • MicroStrategy
  • Nubank
  • Okx
  • Uniswap
  • Riot
  • Leeway Hertz
  • Consensys
  • Gate Io
  • Coinbase
  • Core Scientific
  • Debut Infotech
  • Axoni
  • Alchemy
  • Starkware
  • Mara Holdings
  • MicroStrategy
  • Nubank
  • Okx
  • Uniswap
  • Riot
  • Leeway Hertz

About the founder and CTO

Dmytro Nasyrov

Dmytro Nasyrov

Founder and CTO Pharos Production

Ask the founder a question

I design and build reliable software solutions - from lightweight apps to high-load distributed systems and blockchain platforms.

PhD in Artificial Intelligence, MSc in Computer Science (with honors), MSc in Electronics & Precision Mechanics.

  • 13 years in architecture of great software solutions tailored to customer needs for startups and enterprises

  • 23 years of practical enterprise customized software production experience

  • Lecturer at the National Kyiv Polytechnic University

  • Doctor of Philosophy in Artificial Intelligence

  • Master's degree in Computer Science, completed with excellence

  • Master's degree in Electronics and precision mechanics engineering

Choose your cooperation model

Pharos Production works in three engagement models, from a focused PoC to a production MVP to a full enterprise platform, with typical budgets from $10,000 to $400,000+ depending on scope and complexity.

PoC
Proof of concept

Focused validation of your riskiest technical assumption with a working spike and a clear build-or-pivot recommendation.

$8,500 - $26,000
Popular choice
MVP
MVP build

Production-ready first version with core flows, real backend and the integrations to onboard first paying users.

$45,000 - $140,000
Enterprise
Enterprise platform

Full-scale build with architecture, DevOps, QA, security and long-term evolution.

$170,000 - $460,000+

Prices vary based on project scope, complexity, timeline and requirements. Hourly rates range from $35 to $75 depending on role and seniority. Contact us for a personalized estimate.

Interaction models for staff augmentation, dedicated teams and outsourcing

Request staff augmentation

Need extra hands on your software project? Our developers can jump in at any stage - from architecture to auditing - and integrate seamlessly with your team to fill any technical gaps.

Outsource your project

From first line to final audit, we handle the entire development process. We will deliver secure, production-ready software, while you can focus on your business.

187+ technologies

Technologies, tools and frameworks we use

Our engineers work with 187+ technologies across blockchain, backend, frontend, mobile and DevOps - chosen for production reliability and performance.

Our engineers work with 187+ technologies across 10 categories: Frameworks, AI, Blockchains, DevOps, Clouds, Databases, Brokers, Tests, Programming, UI/UX.

  • Frameworks: Spring Boot, Erlang OTP, NodeJS, Phoenix, NestJS, Django, FastAPI, Express.js, React, Next.JS, Svelte, Angular, Vue.js, Remix, Astro, Nuxt.js, iOS, Android, Flutter, React Native, Capacitors, Ionic, Swift, Kotlin, Java, Dart
  • AI: OpenAI GPT, Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini, Meta Llama, Mistral AI, Cohere, Ollama, xAI Grok, LangChain, LangGraph, CrewAI, AutoGen, Hugging Face, PyTorch, TensorFlow, scikit-learn, LlamaIndex, Keras, XGBoost, LightGBM, OpenCV, spaCy, ONNX Runtime, Pinecone, Weaviate, Qdrant, Chroma, pgvector, Milvus, FAISS, MLflow, Weights & Biases, DVC, Kubeflow, AWS SageMaker, Azure ML, Google Vertex AI, NVIDIA Triton, Airflow, Ray Serve, vLLM, OpenAI Agents SDK, Claude MCP, Semantic Kernel, Haystack
  • Blockchains: Ethereum, TON, Corda, Tron, Hedera, Stellar, Consensys GoQuorum, Solana, Arbitrum, Binance Smart Chain (BSC), Sei, Celo, Hyperledger, MultiversX, IOTA, Polkadot, Aptos, Neo, Flow, Algorand, Avalanche, EOS, Optimism, Polygon, Cosmos, Sui, Tezos, Ontology, Fantom, NEAR Protocol, VeChain, Base, IPFS, Amazon Managed Blockchain, Amazon QLDB, IBM Blockchain, Oracle Blockchain
  • DevOps: Kubernetes, Terraform, Docker, Istio, Prometheus, Grafana, Jenkins, ArgoCD, Ansible, GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Pulumi, Datadog, New Relic, Vault
  • Clouds: Amazon Web Services, Azure, Google Cloud, Cloudflare, Vercel, DigitalOcean
  • Databases: PostgreSQL, MySQL MariaDB, Redis, Cassandra, Neo4J, MongoDB, Elasticsearch, Solr, Ignite, ClickHouse, TimescaleDB, DynamoDB, Supabase, CockroachDB, ScyllaDB
  • Brokers: Kafka, RabbitMQ, Flink, Apache Pulsar, Amazon SQS, Amazon SNS, NATS
  • Tests: Postman, Appium, Cucumber, Selenium, JMeter, Cypress
  • Programming: Solidity, FunC, Rust, GoLang, Elixir, Erlang, C++, Java, JavaScript, TypeScript, Scala, Python, C#, .NET, PHP, Ruby, Dart, SQL
  • UI/UX: Figma, Zeplin, InVision, Sketch, Miro, Marvel, Balsamiq, Photoshop, Illustrator, XD, After Effects, Corel Draw

Frameworks

Backend Frameworks 8

Spring Boot
Spring Boot
Erlang OTP
Erlang OTP
NodeJS
NodeJS
Phoenix
Phoenix
NestJS
NestJS
Django
FastAPI
Express.js

Front End Frameworks 8

React
React
Next.JS
Next.JS
Svelte
Svelte
Angular
Angular
Vue.js
Remix
Astro
Nuxt.js
Trusted & Recognized

Partnerships and awards

Recognized on Clutch, GoodFirms and The Manifest for software engineering excellence

  • Partner1
  • Partner2
  • Partner3
  • Partner4
  • Partner5
65+ industry awards

An approach to the development cycle

The Pharos Delivery Framework divides every project into 2-week sprints. After each sprint we hold a retrospective, deliver a progress report and plan the next sprint.
  1. Team Assembly

    Our company starts and assembles an entire project specialists with the perfect blend of skills and experience to start the work.

  2. MVP

    We'll design, build and launch your MVP, ensuring it meets the core requirements of your software solution.

  3. Production

    We'll create a complete software solution that is custom-made to meet your exact specifications.

  4. Ongoing

    Continuous Support

    Our company will be right there with you, keeping your software solution running smoothly, fixing issues and rolling out updates.

Security engineering insights

A stainless steel vault door slightly ajar revealing a stack of translucent compliance certificates with embossed seals.

FinTech Compliance Checklist 2026: PCI DSS, SOC 2, GDPR and Beyond

What compliance certifications does a FinTech product need? The required certifications depend on your product type, target market and data handling practices. At minimum, most FinTech products need SOC 2 Type II for data security, PCI DSS if handling payment card data and GDPR compliance for EU users. PCI DSS compliance checklist PCI DSS applies […]

Threat-Led Penetration Testing for Crypto Firms

DORA Threat-Led Penetration Testing (TLPT) for crypto firms mapped provision by provision: the Article 26(8) designation gate that decides which CASPs owe TLPT at all, how it differs from ordinary Article 25 testing, the ECB TIBER-EU phases behind it, tester requirements under Article 27 and the evidence a regulator expects afterward.

DORA Register of Information

How a MiCA-authorized CASP builds and maintains the DORA Register of Information under Article 28: the 15-template data model from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2956, mandatory LEI/EUID identifiers, the criticality classification that drives subcontractor depth and risk assessment, common register-build mistakes and the xBRL-CSV submission pipeline.

CRA Incident Reporting Deadlines

The EU Cyber Resilience Act's Article 14 sets up two separate reporting duties, not one sequence: an actively exploited vulnerability and a severe incident share the same 24-hour and 72-hour stages but diverge at the final report deadline. Filing there does not satisfy the separate duty to inform affected users.

CRA Severe Incident Classification

The Cyber Resilience Act never defines severe as a standalone term. The threshold sits in Article 14(5), narrowing the general incident definition to sensitive or important data or functions, or to malicious code, while Article 3(42) sets a separate evidentiary bar for actively exploited that a high severity score alone does not meet.

CRA Vulnerability Handling Requirements

Annex I Part II of the Cyber Resilience Act sets eight standing vulnerability handling duties, and Article 13 layers two further clocks on top: a support period of at least five years, unless the product's expected use is genuinely shorter, and a ten year availability window on every security update issued during it. Which conformity route a product takes then depends on its Annex III or Annex IV class.

CRA Single Reporting Platform Integration

The CRA's Single Reporting Platform is a web form and case management system that ENISA runs, not an API, with no published roadmap for one. Registration runs through named individual Assigned Representatives, and one notification record moves through three stages that lock for good once the final report is submitted.

CRA NIS2 and DORA Reporting Overlap

A company that is at once a CRA manufacturer, a NIS2 essential or important entity and a DORA financial entity keeps three separate reporting duties on three separate filings, even where two of them reach the same national CSIRT. The CRA's Single Reporting Platform consolidates filings within the CRA itself and does not fold NIS2 or DORA into that filing.

Skip glossary

Cybersecurity Terms Explained 7

Penetration Testing
An authorized simulated attack against an application, network or cloud environment to find and safely exploit vulnerabilities, producing evidence and remediation guidance before real attackers do.
SAST
Static Application Security Testing analyzes source code or binaries without running them, flagging injection, hardcoded secrets and insecure patterns early in the development pipeline.
DAST
Dynamic Application Security Testing probes a running application from the outside, sending crafted requests to uncover runtime flaws such as authentication bypass and server misconfiguration.
Threat Modeling
A structured analysis of a system's data flows and trust boundaries, often using STRIDE, to identify likely attack paths and prioritize mitigations during design.
SOC 2
An AICPA auditing framework that evaluates how a service organization manages data across security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality and privacy criteria.
PCI DSS
The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard, a set of controls that organizations handling cardholder data must meet to protect payment information from breach.
CVSS
The Common Vulnerability Scoring System, a 0 to 10 numeric scale that rates the severity of a vulnerability based on exploitability and potential impact.

Frequently asked questions about Cybersecurity Services

Last updated:

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    A focused penetration test typically costs between $8,000 and $30,000 depending on scope, while ongoing managed security or DevSecOps engagements run on monthly retainers. Pricing reflects the number of applications, network size, compliance framework targeted and whether the work is a one-time assessment or a continuous program with retesting and remediation support.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    We perform web application, API, mobile, network, cloud and internal infrastructure penetration testing using black-box, gray-box and white-box approaches. Engagements follow OWASP Testing Guide and PTES methodologies, combine manual exploitation with tooling and conclude with a prioritized findings report, proof-of-concept evidence and a remediation retest.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    We help teams prepare for and pass SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS and GDPR assessments. Work includes gap analysis against the relevant controls, evidence collection, policy and control implementation, security testing and readiness reviews. We align technical hardening with auditor expectations so the assessment itself goes smoothly.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    A standard web application penetration test takes 1 to 3 weeks including reporting, while a full compliance audit preparation for SOC 2 or ISO 27001 can span 2 to 4 months. Timelines depend on application count, environment complexity, the depth of threat modeling required and how much remediation is needed before the formal assessment.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    DevSecOps integration embeds security into your CI/CD pipeline with SAST scanning of source code, DAST scanning of running applications, software composition analysis for dependencies and secrets detection. We configure tools such as Semgrep, OWASP ZAP, Snyk and Trivy, set policy gates and train engineers to triage findings without slowing delivery.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    Threat modeling maps your system's data flows, trust boundaries and assets to identify likely attack paths before code is written or shipped. We typically run it during design and major architecture changes using STRIDE and attack tree techniques, producing a ranked list of threats with concrete mitigations the engineering team can implement.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    Yes. Security code review manually inspects source for injection flaws, broken authentication, insecure cryptography, access control gaps and unsafe dependency usage that automated scanners miss. We combine SAST output with expert review of authentication, authorization and data handling logic, then deliver findings mapped to OWASP and CWE categories with fix guidance.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    Every engagement concludes with an executive summary, a technical findings report ranked by severity using CVSS, proof-of-concept evidence, remediation guidance and a retest to confirm fixes. Compliance engagements add control mapping, policy artifacts and audit-ready evidence. We walk your team through the report so findings translate into prioritized engineering work.

The Pharos takeaway on cybersecurity

Cybersecurity rewards teams that treat identity, detection and supply chain as first-class engineering concerns rather than compliance checkboxes[8]. Zero trust, SBOM attestation and AI-augmented triage are the three areas that separate teams ready for the 2026 threat landscape from teams that have not touched their threat model since the last audit.

Book a 30-minute security readiness call
Dmytro Nasyrov, Founder and CTO at Pharos Production
Dmytro Nasyrov Founder & CTO Let's work together!

Your business results matter

Achieve them with minimized risk through our bespoke innovation capabilities

Your contact details
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Please enter your message
* required

We typically reply within 4 hours. Prefer email? hello@pharosproduction.com

What happens next?

  1. Contact us

    Contact us today to discuss your project. We're ready to review your request promptly and guide you on the best next steps for collaboration

    Same day
  2. NDA

    We're committed to keeping your information confidential, so we'll sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement

    1 day
  3. Plan the Goals

    After we chat about your goals and needs, we'll craft a comprehensive proposal detailing the project scope, team, timeline and budget

    3-5 days
  4. Finalize the Details

    Let's connect on Google Meet to go through the proposal and confirm all the details together!

    1-2 days
  5. Sign the Contract

    As soon as the contract is signed, our dedicated team will jump into action on your project!

    Same day

Our offices

Headquarters in Las Vegas, Nevada. Engineering office in Kyiv, Ukraine.

We also work with clients through dedicated local teams in Las Vegas, New York and San Francisco.

Las Vegas, United States

Headquarters PT
5348 Vegas Dr, Las Vegas, Nevada 89108, United States

Kyiv, Ukraine

Engineering office EET (UTC+2)
44-B Eugene Konovalets Str. Suite 201, Kyiv 01133, Ukraine